timeeater

CDC at the moment says 12% increase compared to the average of the last three years.

Absolute number of deaths have been rising from year to year, sometimes with jumps of 90k.

Sure Covid has an impact, but whether it is dramatic is another question.

It's relevant to your claim that deaths from other diseases have been reduced because of the anti-covid measures.

Or they are all counted as Covid. If you go to the physician with a respiratory disease, they will test for Covid first. Will they still test for the flu? What about people who get to the hospital because of the flu and get infected with Covid there? How will they be counted?

How come number of Covid infection rates is rising, while flu seems to be eradicated? If the measures help against the flu, why not against Covid?

Better, but they should also adjust for increase in population sizes.

Classic to have the y-axis not start at 0 to make a curve look more dramatic.

According to the CDC, there seem to be about 12% more deaths than the average of the last three years, or about 300K. Number of deaths has been rising every year, though, sometimes increasing by up to 90k from one year to the next.

Death by old age does not exist, it is just the older you get, the more likely it is that some disease or other will push you over. Only Covid somehow doesn't count. It's OK to die of an heart attack when you are over 80, but not to die from Covid. (It's OK to try to prevent or delay both things).

7500 deaths per day are average for the US. 9/11 caused 3000 deaths. So the US will probably exceed 9/11 deaths forever, unless population size is drastically reduced somehow.

Same type of claim, that is not supported by data. If you have the data, please provide it.

In the same vein, you could assume Democrats are more at risk because they put too much faith in masks, thereby entering more risky situations. Not saying that's the case. The point is, your expectation of who gets infected is merely your partisan belief, not anything rooted in evidence.

It's not just a matter of parsing lots of information, you also have to collect the information, and interpret it correctly. Maybe one day in the future, a real AI will be able to do better than markets (by what metric, though). But not yet.

Show me the computer program that knows how to create a pencil? And then a toaster? How does it know how many toasters will be needed? Is a toaster more important than a smart watch?

Also, if you have such a Computer program, you could use it to beat the markets. You could use it to compute the perfect prices of futures (because you know the future demand and supply). So I guess there is your answer: if you had such a Computer, you could beat the markets, as long as you don't do that, markets are better.

"You can direct to HUMANITY to whatever ends" - then why don't we have world peace and end of hunger yet?

Those were different incidents, iirc he proposed shutting down travel when news about Covid came from China.

The other "closing of the borders" is about immigration laws. I'm not from the US, but I never understood the anti-Trump position there. Surely, if you have immigration laws, you should try to uphold them. You can criticize the laws and try to change them, but criticizing attempts to uphold the laws makes no sense.

But weren't those lies perpetuated by mainstream media? Where, if not YouTube, would you find the counter narratives? And wouldn't people who believe the MSM not then considered the YouTube debunking to be "lies" and called for censorship?

It's not irrelevant, as the discussion is about alleged effects of free speech on YouTube in the present time.

If water is free, it gets squandered.